Michaud v. Ruch

• Decision Date: 28 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 37120,37120
• Citation: Michaud v. Ruch, 545 S.W.2d 703 (Mo. App. 1976)
• Parties: Merlin Russell MICHAUD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ella RUCH, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 703

545 S.W.2d 703

Merlin Russell MICHAUD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.Ella RUCH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 37120.

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One.

Dec. 28, 1976.

Raymond H. Vogel, Vogel & Frye, Cape Girardeau, for appellant.

Francis Toohey, Jr., Perryville, Buerkle, Buerkle & Lowes, David G. Beeson, Jackson, for respondent.

KELLY, Judge.

Ella Ruch, defendant-appellant, seeks to have this court reverse a decree of specific performance and judgment of the Circuit Court of Perry County whereby she was ordered to transfer title in certain described real estate situate in Perry County to the plaintiff-respondent pursuant to a contract for the sale of said real estate entered into between Mrs. Ruch and the plaintiff, Merlin Russell Michaud for a consideration of $38,000.00 on August 27, 1972.We affirm.

Plaintiff filed his petition for specific performance of a contract he alleged he entered into with the defendant on August 26, 1972, for the purchase of a 266 acre farm owned by the defendant for a consideration of $38,000.00.According to the terms of the contract $3,800.00 of the consideration was to be paid to defendant upon the signing of the contract and an additional $6,200.00 upon delivery of the deed to the farm.The balance of $28,000.00 was to be paid in equal annual installments over a 14 year period bearing interest at a rate of 6% per annum as evidenced by a promissory note in that amount secured by a first deed of trust on the farm.Defendant's Amended Answer admitted ownership of the land, denied the other allegations of plaintiff's petition, and alleged that on August 26, 1972she was 'weak of mind and incapable of managing and transacting ordinary business matters, was in a depressed state and mentally and emotionally overwrought, was subject to being influenced and coerced and over-reached and if said contract was signed by defendant, such signing was the result of such incapacity, mental and emotional state and of undue influence, coercion and overreaching.'She further alleged that she did not understand that the contract would be enforceable.

With the issues thus framed by the pleadings the cause came on for trial.

Plaintiff's evidence was that after learning that defendant wished to sell her farm he contacted her and negotiated a sales contract.Over a period of several months he obtained financing for the agreed purchase price of $38,000.00, and then he, Harley Taylor and Janice Taylor, the wife of Harley Taylor, signed the contract for purchase of the farm from Mrs. Ruch.This contract had been prepared by defendant's lawyer.At the time they signed the contract the Taylors and plaintiff were going to purchase the farm as partners, but in the interim plaintiff purchased the Taylors' interest in the sales contract and agreed that the Taylors would no longer be subject to any liability thereon.At the time the contract was signed, on August 26, 1972, plaintiff paid Mr. Brewer, defendant's attorney, $3,800.00 in the form of a certified or cashier's check, which defendant asked Mr. Brewer to keep and not cash.After plaintiff obtained an abstract of title he went to Mrs. Ruch and advised her that he was ready to close the sale, but she advised him that she did not think she would go through with it.Plaintiff consulted his attorney and a notice was sent to Mrs. Ruch that he was prepared to close the sale in the office of her attorney on December 13, 1972.When that date came to pass, plaintiff, Weldon Huber, the chief loan officer of the First National Bank of Perryville, Missouri, and plaintiff's counsel went to Mr. Brewer's office where plaintiff offered to either pay the entire balance due on the purchase price or, in the alternative, to deliver the balance of the purchase price according to the terms of the contract.Mr. Brewer refused to deliver a deed to the farm because defendant had not signed one and had informed him that she did not intend to complete the contract.

With respect to the defendant's competency to enter into the contract with the plaintiff, plaintiff offered the testimony of Mr. Brewer and defendant's granddaughter who testified that they considered the defendant fully capable of entering into the contract with the plaintiff in August, 1972.Defendant testified in the offices of a nursing home where she resided at time of trial, but her testimony was confusing.She had no recollection of the contract or whether she had signed it.She did not recognize Mr. Brewer and did not recall whether she ever wanted to sell the farm.She recalled running an ad in a newspaper--the Perry County Republican--advertising the farm for sale on December 1, 1971, when the advertisement was displayed to her.According to the record of the Perry County Memorial Hospitalthe defendant was hospitalized there on April 3, 1956 for hyperostosis frontalis interna.Records of St. Mary's Hospital in St. Louis revealed that defendant was a patient in that Hospital between July 21, 1956, and August 19, 1956, when her condition was diagnosed as depressive reaction, antisocial reaction and chronic brain syndrome associated with cerebral arteriosclerosis.She was treated with psychotherapy and electric shock treatments and was discharged as improved.On April 12, 1964, she was admitted to St. Vincent's Hospital in St. Louis with an admission diagnosis of involutional depressive reaction following her husband's death the previous November.Although she wanted electric shock treatments they were not resorted to as part of her course of treatment and on April 16, 1964, she was discharged 'on trial.'On September 30, 1964, the defendant was discharged from St. Vincent's as improved.

Clarence Ruch and Francis Ruch, defendant's sons, also testified and expressed an opinion that she was not competent to execute the contract in August, 1972.On interrogation by the trial court both admitted that they thought $38,000.00 was probably a reasonable price for the farm, in August, 1972.

After the conclusion of the evidence the defendant made a request for findings in the following form:

'REQUEST FOR FINDINGS

Defendant requests the Court to draft an opinion and to include therein a statement of the grounds for its decision and its findings on the following:

1.Whether or not defendant was suffering from any mental or emotional disability at the time the contract was executed.

2.Whether or not defendant was subjected to pressure or coercion to sign the contract.

3.Whether defendant fully understood the legal consequences of signing the contract.'

Thereafter, on April 10, 1975, the defendant filed proposed findings and judgment, but these were not accepted by the trial court and on the 16th day of April, 1975, the trial court entered its decree, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, directing the defendant to execute a deed to the farm, subject to the payment into the registry of the court the balance of the down payment of $6,200.00 and a note and deed of trust for $28,000.00, said note to bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum, payable semi-annually on July 10 and January 10, in an amount of $10,000.00 on January 10, 1976, $10,000.00 on January 10, 1977, and $8,000.00 on January 10, 1978.Mr. Brewer was further ordered to turn over the check for $3,800.00 to the defendant and to deduct the costs from the deposit of moneys made by plaintiff into the registry of the court and the balance thereof to the defendant upon demand.The trial court further ordered that upon compliance with the terms of the decree by plaintiff title in fee simple absolute should be deemed vested in plaintiff.

Defendant filed...